Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

With careful modelling and enough precise events, dark-siren cross-correlations can deliver unbiased H0 despite common systematics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 17:22 UTC pith:R4QU4CHX

load-bearing objection Solid methodological audit of GW–galaxy cross-correlations: shows how to keep H0 unbiased under controlled systematics, with the main caveat being the deliberately optimistic detector assumptions. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.06783 v2 pith:R4QU4CHX submitted 2026-05-07 astro-ph.CO

Dark siren cross-correlations and the sensitivity of H₀ to methodological choices

Madeline L. Cross-Parkin , Cullan Howlett , Leonardo Giani , Chris Blake , Tamara M. Davis This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords dark sirensgravitational wavesH0angular cross-correlationcatalogue incompletenessbias parametrisationtomographic binninglarge-scale structure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Gravitational-wave sources give absolute distances but usually lack redshifts, so cosmologists match them statistically to galaxies. This paper studies an alternative: measure the angular clustering overlap between the two tracers and find the cosmology that maximises that overlap once galaxy redshifts are converted to distances. The authors systematically test how covariance estimation, bias parametrisation, bin width, Malmquist/Eddington scatter, and catalogue incompleteness shift the recovered Hubble constant. They show that selection can be absorbed into the theoretical window function without inventing the missing galaxies, and that the systematic biases they consider become controllable once modelling choices are consistent and the gravitational-wave sample is large and precise. The practical message is that the method is ready for next-generation detectors if those modelling choices are made carefully.

Core claim

When covariance is estimated from mocks (including off-diagonal terms), galaxy and gravitational-wave biases are allowed flexible redshift dependence, distance and redshift bins are chosen larger than measurement errors, and selection is forward-modelled into the kernels, the compressed cross-correlation statistic recovers unbiased H0; incompleteness need not be repopulated explicitly because it cancels in the overdensity once the radial weight is correct.

What carries the argument

The compressed scalar S_ij, the multipole-weighted sum of the galaxy–GW angular power spectrum in each redshift–distance bin pair; it measures line-of-sight clustering overlap and is forward-modelled with selection-aware projection kernels so that H0 and bias parameters can be fit jointly.

Load-bearing premise

The tests use highly idealised gravitational-wave uncertainties (1 percent distance error, one-square-degree sky area) and purely radial selection functions; if real localisation or angularly varying incompleteness is much worse, the claimed mitigation may not hold at the same precision.

What would settle it

Apply the same pipeline to a mock catalogue that injects realistic LVK-like localisation areas (tens of square degrees) and magnitude- and position-dependent incompleteness; if the recovered H0 then shifts by more than the statistical error despite the recommended modelling choices, the mitigation claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Mock-based covariances that retain bin–bin correlations should replace purely analytic diagonal covariances for samples of a few hundred events.
  • Bias models must be at least linear in redshift; constant bias per bin is insufficient once samples grow large.
  • Catalogue incompleteness can be handled by inserting the observed radial selection into the theory kernels rather than by inventing missing galaxies.
  • Finer redshift binning improves H0 precision more than finer luminosity-distance binning when galaxies are dense and GWs are sparse.
  • With next-generation detectors and consistent modelling, dark-siren cross-correlations become a competitive, complementary route to H0.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same kernel formalism can be extended to include a spectral-siren mass prior, combining clustering and population information in one likelihood.
  • Once real catalogues replace the idealised mocks, the dominant residual systematics will likely be angularly varying completeness and non-Gaussian localisation maps rather than the effects already tested.
  • The method’s reduced sensitivity to incompleteness makes it a natural cross-check for standard dark-siren analyses that must model the missing population explicitly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper examines how methodological choices and systematics affect H0 inference from the tomographic angular cross-correlation of gravitational-wave dark sirens with galaxy catalogues. Using 600 log-normal mocks (flat ΛCDM, H0=70), it compares the compressed statistic Sij (Eq. 2.16) against the full Cℓ, analytic versus mock covariances (with Hartlap/Percival corrections), constant/linear/quadratic bias parametrisations, redshift and luminosity-distance bin widths, Malmquist/Eddington biases from distance scatter plus detection thresholds, and catalogue incompleteness under radial selection functions. Selection and distance uncertainties are forward-modelled into the projection kernels (Eqs. 2.10–2.15, 2.12). The central claim is that, with mock covariances including off-diagonals, flexible bias, selection absorbed into the kernels, and bin widths ≳ σ dL, plus a large sample of precise events, the considered systematics can be mitigated so that H0 remains unbiased, and that incompleteness need not be modelled by repopulating missing galaxies.

Significance. If the controlled results hold under the stated idealisations, the work supplies concrete, actionable guidance for an emerging dark-siren technique that is complementary to both bright-siren and standard galaxy-catalogue approaches. Explicit strengths include the transparent forward-modelling of Eddington/Malmquist and selection effects, the quantitative comparison of compressed versus full statistics and analytic versus mock covariances, the demonstration that purely radial incompleteness cancels in the overdensity when pdet(z) is included (Eqs. 3.4–3.8), and the use of a large mock suite with proper inverse-covariance corrections. These elements make the paper a useful reference for future analyses with next-generation detectors and surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [2.4, Abstract, 3.4] Section 2.4 and the abstract claim: the simulations adopt σ dL=1% and 95% sky area of 1 deg² (versus current LVK medians of ~20–30% and ~40 deg²). While the text correctly flags this as idealised to isolate pipeline choices, the central claim that systematics “can be effectively mitigated” for “future dark siren precision cosmology” is left without a quantitative bridge. A single degradation test (or scaling argument) with more realistic localisation and distance errors would make the extrapolation load-bearing rather than aspirational; without it the mitigation statements remain strictly conditional on the optimistic regime.
  2. [3.3.3, Eqs. 2.13, 3.4–3.8] Section 3.3.3 and Eqs. 2.13, 3.4–3.8: the incompleteness advantage is demonstrated only for purely radial, position-independent selection (including one declination-dependent magnitude cut). The separability assumed in Eq. 2.13 and the exact cancellation δ det=δ fail for selections that depend on galaxy colour, environment or fibre collisions. The paper notes the limitation but does not quantify residual bias when the observed n(z) is used as a noisy proxy or when angular selection couples to the mask. A short additional mock with angularly varying completeness would confirm that the claimed key advantage survives beyond the radial case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1, Appendix A] Figure 1 caption and surrounding text: the schematic is helpful, but the statement that Sij is the “limiting case of purely radial separation” would be clearer if Appendix A’s derivation (especially the closure relation A.1 and the identification with ξ(r) along the line of sight) were cross-referenced earlier.
  2. [3.1] Section 3.1 and Figure 2: the factor ~1.4–1.5 degradation in σ(H0) when compressing to Sij is reported, yet no statement is given on whether the same factor persists once realistic, event-by-event localisation beams replace the common Gaussian Wℓ. A one-sentence remark would help.
  3. [2.3] Equation 2.19 and the definition of Aij(z): the text correctly stresses that Aij is a kernel-weighted average, not the product of biases at a single redshift. Adding the limiting expression for narrow bins would make the subsequent bias-parametrisation tests easier to interpret.
  4. [Contents, 2.2] Minor typographical and notational points: “F ormalism” in the contents, occasional missing spaces around H0, and inconsistent use of “GWj” versus “GW,j” in kernels. These are easily cleaned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: free parameters (H0, biases) are fitted to mock data vectors generated from a known input cosmology; recoveries are empirical tests of modelling choices, not algebraic identities or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper is a controlled methodological study. Log-normal mocks are generated with a fixed flat-ΛCDM cosmology (H0 = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1) and known quadratic bias; the data vector Sij is measured from those mocks and compared to a CAMB-based theory prediction in which H0 and the bias coefficients are free parameters (Eqs. 2.17–2.20). Unbiased recovery of the input H0 under various modelling choices (mock vs analytic covariance, bias polynomial order, forward-modelled selection kernels, bin widths) is therefore an empirical validation, not a prediction forced by construction. The incompleteness argument (Eqs. 3.4–3.8) follows directly from the definition of the overdensity under a known radial selection function and does not re-use the target H0. Malmquist/Eddington effects are absorbed by the explicit CDF+threshold construction in the GW kernel (Eq. 2.12). No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or load-bearing result is imported solely via self-citation; the single self-reference (Cross-Parkin et al. 2025) is used only for context on the galaxy-catalogue approach. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the paper’s own simulations and does not reduce any claimed result to its inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard flat-ΛCDM mocks, linear bias, Gaussian distance/redshift errors, and the MASTER pseudo-C_ℓ formalism. Free parameters are the usual cosmological and bias coefficients fitted inside the likelihood; no new physical entities are postulated. The main modelling axioms are the optimistic detector errors and the assumption that selection is purely radial.

free parameters (4)
  • H0
    Primary parameter of interest; fitted via the Gaussian likelihood on the S_ij data vector (Eq. 2.17).
  • galaxy and GW bias coefficients (constant / linear / quadratic)
    Nuisance parameters jointly fitted with H0; different polynomial orders are tested in §3.3.2.
  • redshift and luminosity-distance bin widths
    Analysis choices that control shot-noise vs resolution trade-off; varied systematically in §3.4.
  • localisation beam width σ_loc
    Derived from the assumed 1 deg² 95 % area and used to smooth C_ℓ; fixed rather than free but chosen by hand.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM with fixed Ωm = 0.25, Ωb = 0.044, ΩΛ = 0.75 for mock generation
    Section 2.4; used to generate the 600 log-normal realisations against which all pipelines are tested.
  • domain assumption Gaussian luminosity-distance and redshift likelihoods with known σ_dL, σ_z
    Eqs. 2.12–2.13; enables analytic forward-modelling of Eddington/Malmquist and bin assignment.
  • domain assumption Selection functions are purely radial (position-independent at fixed z)
    Section 3.3.3; required for the overdensity cancellation that lets incompleteness be absorbed into the window without modelling missing galaxies.
  • domain assumption Linear bias and Limber approximation for theoretical C_ℓ
    Eqs. 2.5, 2.14–2.15 and CAMB evaluation; standard large-scale-structure assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper Optimistic GW errors (σ_dL = 1 %, 1 deg² localisation) isolate pipeline systematics
    Explicitly stated in §2.4; not representative of current LVK events.
invented entities (1)
  • Compressed statistic S_ij no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar summary of the angular cross-power that reduces dimensionality while retaining most H0 information
    Defined in Eq. 2.16 as the multipole-weighted sum of C_ℓ; physically the line-of-sight correlation (Appendix A). Not a new physical object, only a convenient estimator already close to prior real-space approaches.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25115 in / 2877 out tokens · 29599 ms · 2026-07-12T17:22:44.860977+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gravitational wave sources act as absolute distance indicators, making them powerful probes of the present-day expansion rate of the Universe, $H_0$. The cross-correlation method combines gravitational wave events with galaxy catalogues to constrain cosmological parameters through their shared large-scale structure. In this work, we investigate how key methodological choices -- including covariance treatment, bias parametrisation for galaxies and gravitational wave events, and distance and redshift binning width -- affect the inferred value of $H_0$. We also study catalogue incompleteness, showing that selection effects can be incorporated directly into the theoretical prediction, without the need to model the missing population explicitly, a key advantage over the standard galaxy catalogue approach. Our results indicate that, with appropriate modelling choices and a sufficiently large sample of precise gravitational wave events, the systematic biases considered here can be effectively mitigated, highlighting the potential of the cross-correlation method for future dark siren precision cosmology.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Skipping the rungs! Calibrating distance indicators through their clustering with galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Cross-correlations of SN Ia in redshift and distance space with galaxies can constrain a constant magnitude offset ΔM at the ~0.05 level in optimistic survey forecasts, partially breaking the H0–ΔM degeneracy.

  2. Skipping the rungs! Calibrating distance indicators through their clustering with galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Fisher forecasts show angular cross-correlations between distance indicators and galaxy catalogs can constrain a constant calibration offset to ~0.05 mag and H0 to ~1.81 km/s/Mpc with future LSST+DESI data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant. Nature, 551(7678):85–88, November 2017. doi: 10.1038/nature24471

    doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with advanced ligo, advanced virgo and kagra.Living Reviews in Relativity, 23(1), Sept. 2020. ISSN 1433-8351. doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2020

  3. [3]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion History from GWTC–3.Astrophys. J., 949(2):76, 2023. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bb 2023

  4. [4]

    Acernese, Agathos, et al

    F. Acernese, Agathos, et al. Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(2):024001, January 2015. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  5. [5]

    Agrawal, R

    A. Agrawal, R. Makiya, C.-T. Chiang, D. Jeong, S. Saito, and E. Komatsu. Generating log-normal mock catalog of galaxies in redshift space.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017(10):003–003, Oct. 2017. ISSN 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/003. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/003

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/003 2017

  6. [6]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsu et al. Kagra: 2.5 generation interferometric gravitational wave detector.Nature Astronomy, 3(1):35–40, January 2019. ISSN 2397-3366. doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y. given the gravitational wave and galaxy distance/redshift errors and distance/redshift bins we are using i.e. ∆χ∼ r ( σdL (1+z) )2 + ...

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y 2019

  7. [7]

    Alonso, J

    D. Alonso, J. Sanchez, and A. Slosar. A unified pseudo-cℓframework.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484(3):4127–4151, Jan. 2019. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz093. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz093

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz093 2019

  8. [8]

    Barreira, E

    A. Barreira, E. Krause, and F. Schmidt. Complete super-sample lensing covariance in the response approach.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018(06):015–015, 2018. ISSN 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/06/015. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/06/015

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/06/015 2018

  9. [9]

    S. Bera, D. Rana, S. More, and S. Bose. Incompleteness matters not: Inference of h0 from binary black hole–galaxy cross-correlations.The Astrophysical Journal, 902(1):79, Oct. 2020. ISSN 1538-4357. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e0. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e0 2020

  10. [10]

    Borghi, M

    N. Borghi, M. Moresco, M. Tagliazucchi, and G. Cuomo. Echoes from the dark: Galaxy catalog incompleteness in standard siren cosmology.Astronomy and; Astrophysics, 706:A199, Feb. 2026. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557354. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202557354

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557354 2026

  11. [11]

    Calore, A

    F. Calore, A. Cuoco, T. Regimbau, S. Sachdev, and P. D. Serpico. Cross-correlating galaxy catalogs and gravitational waves: A tomographic approach.Physical Review Research, 2(2), June

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023314

    ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023314. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023314

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023314

  13. [13]

    A. Carr, T. M. Davis, D. Scolnic, K. Said, D. Brout, E. R. Peterson, and R. Kessler. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Improving the Redshifts and Peculiar Velocities of Type Ia Supernovae Used in Cosmological Analyses.Publ.Astron.Soc.Pac., 39:e046, October 2022. doi: 10.1017/pasa.2022.41. URLhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASA...39...46C

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2022.41 2022

  14. [14]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz. A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within five years.Nature, 562(7728):545–547, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0 2018

  15. [15]

    A. Q. Cheng and J. Gair. A unified harmonic framework for dark siren cosmology. 3 2026

    2026

  16. [16]

    Collaboration

    D. Collaboration. Overview of the instrumentation for the dark energy spectroscopic instrument. The Astronomical Journal, 164(5):207, October 2022. ISSN 1538-3881. doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b 2022

  17. [17]

    M. L. Cross-Parkin, C. Howlett, T. M. Davis, and N. Khetan. Dark sirens and the impact of redshift precision.Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42:e149, 2025. doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10111

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10111 2025

  18. [18]

    R. S. de Jong, O. Bellido-Tirado, et al. 4MOST: 4-metre multi-object spectroscopic telescope. In I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, and H. Takami, editors,Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, volume 8446 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 84460T, Sept. 2012. doi: 10.1117/12.926239

    doi:10.1117/12.926239 2012

  19. [19]

    I. S. de Matos, C. Dalang, T. Baker, R. Abramo, J. Ferri, and M. Quartin. First measurement of the hubble constant from gravitational wave-galaxy cross-correlations, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.15380

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Del Pozzo

    W. Del Pozzo. Inference of cosmological parameters from gravitational waves: Applications to second generation interferometers.Phys. Rev. D, 86:043011, Aug 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043011. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043011

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.043011 2012

  21. [21]

    A. S. Eddington. On a formula for correcting statistics for the effects of a known error of observation.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 73:359–360, Mar. 1913. doi: 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359

    doi:10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 1913

  22. [22]

    A. M. Farah, T. A. Callister, J. M. Ezquiaga, M. Zevin, and D. E. Holz. No need to know: – 23 – astrophysics-free gravitational-wave cosmology, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Ferri, I

    J. Ferri, I. L. Tashiro, L. Abramo, I. Matos, M. Quartin, and R. Sturani. A robust cosmic standard ruler from the cross-correlations of galaxies and dark sirens.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(04):008, Apr. 2025. ISSN 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/008. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/008

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/008 2025

  24. [24]

    Finke, S

    A. Finke, S. Foffa, F. Iacovelli, M. Maggiore, and M. Mancarella. Cosmology with LIGO/Virgo dark sirens: Hubble parameter and modified gravitational wave propagation.JCAP, 08:026,

  25. [25]

    doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/026

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/026 2021

  26. [26]

    Fishbach et al

    M. Fishbach et al. A Standard Siren Measurement of the Hubble Constant from GW170817 without the Electromagnetic Counterpart.Astrophys. J. Lett., 871(1):L13, 2019. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96e 2019

  27. [27]

    Fosalba, M

    P. Fosalba, M. Crocce, E. Gaztañaga, and F. J. Castander. The MICE grand challenge lightcone simulation – I. Dark matter clustering.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448 (4):2987–3000, March 2015. ISSN 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv138. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv138

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv138 2015

  28. [28]

    J. R. Gair et al. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Catalog Approach for Dark Siren Gravitational-wave Cosmology.Astron. J., 166(1):22, July 2023. doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acca78

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acca78 2023

  29. [29]

    Ghosh, S

    T. Ghosh, S. More, S. Bera, and S. Bose. Bayesian framework to infer the hubble constant from the cross-correlation of individual gravitational wave events with galaxies.Physical Review D, 111(6), Mar. 2025. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.111.063513. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063513

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063513 2025

  30. [30]

    Giani, C

    L. Giani, C. Howlett, R. Ruggeri, F. Bianchini, K. Said, and T. M. Davis. Cross-correlating radial peculiar velocities and cmb lensing convergence.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023(05):002, May 2023. ISSN 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/002. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/002

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/002 2023

  31. [31]

    R. Gray, C. Messenger, and J. Veitch. A pixelated approach to galaxy catalogue incompleteness: improving the dark siren measurement of the hubble constant.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512(1):1127–1140, Feb. 2022. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac366. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac366

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac366 2022

  32. [32]

    Gray et al

    R. Gray et al. Cosmological inference using gravitational wave standard sirens: A mock data analysis.Phys. Rev. D, 101(12):122001, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.122001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.122001 2020

  33. [33]

    Hartlap, P

    J. Hartlap, P. Simon, and P. Schneider. Why your model parameter confidences might be too optimistic. unbiased estimation of the inverse covariance matrix.Astronomy and; Astrophysics, 464(1):399–404, Dec. 2006. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066170 2006

  34. [34]

    D. E. Holz and S. A. Hughes. Using gravitational-wave standard sirens.The Astrophysical Journal, 629(1):15, aug 2005. doi: 10.1086/431341. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/431341

    doi:10.1086/431341 2005

  35. [35]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor. CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026, Feb. 2011

    2011

  36. [36]

    Advanced LIGO.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(7):074001, Apr

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration. Advanced LIGO.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(7):074001, Apr. 2015. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  37. [37]

    D. N. Limber. The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field.Astrophys. J., 117:134, Jan. 1953. doi: 10.1086/145672. – 24 –

    doi:10.1086/145672 1953

  38. [38]

    G. K. Malmquist. A study of the stars of spectral type A.Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie II, 22:3–69, Mar. 1920

    1920

  39. [39]

    McIntosh

    A. McIntosh. The jackknife estimation method, 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00497

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Krolewski, B. D. Wandelt, and J. Silk. Cross-correlating dark sirens and galaxies: Constraints on h 0 from gwtc-3 of ligo–virgo–kagra.The Astrophysical Journal, 975(2): 189, Nov. 2024. ISSN 1538-4357. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d90. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d90

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d90 2024

  41. [41]

    J. A. Newman. Calibrating Redshift Distributions beyond Spectroscopic Limits with Cross-Correlations.Astrophys. J., 684(1):88–101, Sept. 2008. doi: 10.1086/589982

    doi:10.1086/589982 2008

  42. [42]

    M. Oguri. Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies.Physical Review D, 93(8), Apr. 2016. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.083511. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.083511

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.083511 2016

  43. [43]

    J. Pan, D. Huterer, C. Avestruz, D. H. T. Cheung, E. Trott, N. Dalal, and D. Jeong. Determining the Hubble Constant through Cross-Correlation of Galaxies and Gravitational Waves. 10 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    Pedrotti, M

    A. Pedrotti, M. Mancarella, J. Bel, and D. Gerosa. Cosmology with the angular cross-correlation of gravitational-wave and galaxy catalogs: forecasts for next-generation interferometers and the euclid survey, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10482

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    W. J. Percival, A. J. Ross, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: including covariance matrix errors.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439(3):2531–2541, Feb. 2014. ISSN 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu112. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu112

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu112 2014

  46. [46]

    G. Sala, A. Cuoco, J. Lesgourgues, K.-R. Revis, L. V. Dall’Armi, and S. Casas. Inferring cosmological parameters from galaxy and dark sirens cross-correlation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08699

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    B. F. Schutz. Determining the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Observations.Nature, 323:310–311, September 1986. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/323310a0. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/323310a0#citeas

    doi:10.1038/323310a0 1986

  48. [48]

    Schöneberg, M

    N. Schöneberg, M. Simonović, J. Lesgourgues, and M. Zaldarriaga. Beyond the traditional line-of-sight approach of cosmological angular statistics.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018(10):047–047, Oct. 2018. ISSN 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/047. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/047

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/047 2018

  49. [49]

    Soares-Santos, A

    M. Soares-Santos, A. Palmese, W. Hartley, et al. First measurement of the hubble constant from a dark standard siren using the dark energy survey galaxies and the ligo/virgo binary–black-hole merger gw170814.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 876(1):L7, Apr. 2019. ISSN 2041-8213. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab14f1. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab14f1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab14f1 2019

  50. [50]

    R. M. Sullivan, L. T. Hergt, and D. Scott. Methods for cmb map analysis, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12951

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess. Tensions between the early and late universe.Nature Astronomy, 3(10):891–895, Sept. 2019. ISSN 2397-3366. doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0. – 25 –

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 2019